DOCSLIB.ORG

Tech City: the Future of Inner East London’S Digital Economy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tech City: the Future of Inner East London’S Digital Economy A TALE OF TECH CITY: THE FUTURE OF INNER EAST LONDON’S DIGITAL ECONOMY Open Access. Some rights reserved. Centre for London is a new politically independent, As the publisher of this work, Centre for London wants to encourage the not-for-profit think tank focused on the big policy circulation of our work as widely as possible while retaining the copyright. challenges facing London. It aims to help London We therefore have an open access policy which enables anyone to access our content online without charge. Anyone can download, save, perform build on its long history as a centre of economic, or distribute this work in any format, including translation, without written social, and intellectual innovation, and create a fairer, permission. This is subject to the terms of the Centre for London licence more prosperous, democratic and sustainable city. found at the back of this publication. Its main conditions are: Centre for London acts as a critical friend to · Centre for London and the author(s) are credited London’s leaders and policymakers, and promotes a · This summary and the address www.centreforlondon.co.uk are displayed wider understanding of the challenges facing London. · The text is not altered and is used in full · The work is not resold The Centre develops long term, rigorous and · A copy of the work or link to its use online is sent to Centre for London. radical policy solutions for the capital. It works collaboratively with its supporters, drawing on their You are welcome to ask for permission to use this work for purposes other than those covered by the licence. Centre for London gratefully acknowledges experience and expertise. the work of Creative Commons in inspiring our approach to copyright. Centre for London is incubated by the national To find out more go to www.creativecommons.org. think tank Demos. This report has been produced with the support of the British Venture Capital Association, British Telecommunications Plc, London & Partners and the Federation of Small Businesses. Thanks also to our colleagues at Demos. Published by: Centre for London 2012 © Centre for London. Some rights reserved. Third Floor Magdalen House 136 Tooley Street London, SE1 2TU T: 0845 458 5949 F: 020 7367 4201 [email protected] www.centreforlondon.co.uk Series design by StudioAparte BIOGRAPHIES Rob Whitehead Rob Whitehead is Deputy Director (Research) at Dr Max Nathan Centre for London. He leads on all research for the Max is a Research Fellow at lse’s Spatial Economics Centre, and was co-author of London’s Calling – Centre Research Centre and at lse Cities, where he works on for London’s inaugural research into social mobility and urban economics and economic development issues. higher education. He completed an urban policy and spatial economics He is a regular commentator on London issues in phd in lse’s Geography Department in 2011 on the local, national and international media. Rob has taught economics of cultural diversity in British cities. at ucl and London Metropolitan universities. Prior to Max has over 12 years’ experience working in think establishing Centre for London he was head of strategy tanks, consultancy and public policy. Most recently, he at the London Development Agency, working on, among worked at the uk Department of Communities and other things, Olympic financing, worklessness and Local Government (dclg) as an esrc-dclg Senior Policy economic policy. Adviser, covering localism, regeneration, innovation and Rob holds an mba from Cranfield University and economic development. em Lyon. Before his immersion in London policy issues In 2005, Max helped set up the Centre for Cities he worked in management roles in the private and not- think tank, where he ran the research programme, and is for-profit sectors in London, Spain, and Latin America. now a member of the Centre’s Research Advisory Board. (@DailyRobbery) (@iammaxnathan) Emma Vandore An urbanist and writer, Emma has 15 years of political and economic journalism experience. Formerly head of the economic service for the Associated Press in Paris and Bloomberg’s chief political reporter in France, Emma has covered a breadth of industry sectors and political issues. She has worked across the globe, recently focusing on London and West Africa in policy and communications roles for organisations including the Financial Times and the Town and Country Planning Association. Emma has a masters in spatial planning from the Bartlett (ucl), where she specialised in regeneration with a focus on London’s East End and the Olympic Park area. Her publications include the 2007 book on French politics, Schizophrenie Francaise: Sego, Sarko, Jacques et moi. (@emmissima) 4 5 CONTENTS Acknowledgements 9 Foreword: Ben Hammersley, The Prime Minister’s Ambassador to Tech City 11 Executive summary 15 1. INTRODUCTION 28 2. CITIES AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY 38 3. UNDERSTANDING THE CLUSTER 48 4. VIEWS FROM INNER EAST LONDON FIRMS 64 5. FUTURE SCENARIOS 90 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 96 Appendix 1/Project Methodology 112 Appendix 2/Defining the digital economy 116 Appendix 3/Datasets 120 Appendix 4/Glossary 124 Notes & References 128/129 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank all the firms, entrepreneurs, policymakers and other stakeholders who gave up their time to take part in the research. Without their co-operation this project would not have been possible. Many thanks to Charles Armstrong and Craig McMillan at Tech City Map, and Kam Star at Digital Shoreditch, for access to the Tech City Map database; to Dr Duncan Smith at ucl/casa for gis maps; Andrew Connolly at DueDil for access to the Real London Tech StartUps dataset; Richard Welpton and the Secure Data Service for access to bsd and sbs datasets; Eric Van Der Kleij at tcio for his patient input and Ben Hammersley for writing the foreword. Thanks also to everyone who participated in the project roundtable in April 2012, and to participants at a ucl/Bartlett seminar in April for input on early versions of the report. Many thanks to the staff and interns at Centre for London and Demos who helped bring this project to fruition: Roland Chanin-Morris, Kat Hanna, Beatrice Karol Burks, Ben Rogers, Margaux Salmon, Ralph Scott and Jess Tyrrell. Finally, credit is due to Graeme Evans, Chris Orange and Margarethe Theseira for their helpful comments and advice. The views in this report are those solely of the authors. All errors and omissions remain our own. We would like to thank our partners British Venture Capital Association, British Telecommunications Plc, London & Partners and the Federation of Small Businesses for their support for this work. While they have offered advice and expertise, the findings and recommendations in this report are the responsibility of Centre for London alone. Disclaimer: This work includes analysis based on data from bsd, produced by the Office for National Statistics (ons) and supplied by the Secure Data Service at the uk Data Archive. The data are Crown copyright and reproduced with the permission of the controller of hmso and Queen’s Printer for Scotland. The use of the ons statistical data in this work does not imply the endorsement of the ons or the Secure Data Service at the uk Data Archive in relation to the interpretation or analysis of the data. This work uses research datasets that may not exactly reproduce National Statistics aggregates. All the outputs have been granted final clearance by the staff of the sds-ukda. 9 FOREWORD Nowhere but a megacity like London, with its massively diverse, intensely globalised, traditionally innovative population, can really have a chance at succeeding in this most 21st century of revolutions. It is massively to the credit of the Coalition Government that it has noticed, and chosen to nurture, the disruptive forces a few miles to the east of Westminster, in the cluster of digital activity the Government has dubbed ‘Tech City’. The Government’s support, both vocal and financial, is a key factor in helping this cluster flourish in these very early years. Of course, for every cheque we need a balance, and that is why reports such as this one are so very welcome. Hype, branding, the promise of a boom or the fear of a bubble will all obscure what is really going on if neutral but in-depth investigations like this are not made and regularly repeated. Indeed, both local and national government policy must be made in the same manner as the products of Tech City itself: iteratively, with constant attention to user feedback. In that way, Tech City policy may never be complete – it may never be possible to say precisely what it is, as if it was a finished, bound, completed thing. Government policy, influenced by reports such as this, should be in perpetual beta. Data driven policy is only as good as the data itself, and so it is with joy that I note this report’s attention to detail. We should all welcome the most comprehensive analysis to date of what and who makes up Tech City, and what it is the entrepreneurs behind the firms say they want from government. Combined with future repeat research – which I urge the authors to consider – we will be able, as policymakers, businesspeople, and academics, to have a much greater, deeper, and more effective understanding of both the potential and the dangers of interventions such as Tech City. Clusters, as the report writes, are not to be made artificially. They cannot be. Instead, they grow and blossom organically from the rich soil of the surrounding 11 city. London is a special place, fertile with creative influences. Tech City is a success, and will grow, not because of the Tech, but because of the City – the humanity, the rubbing together of cultures, the tensions and the beauties therein.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annex 2: Strategic Context for London Borough Exemption Applications
    Annex 2: Strategic context for London borough exemption applications Whilst the Mayor of London has made an exemption submission focussing on the locations identified in the London Plan as being of national importance (the Central Activities Zone and its extensions to the east and south-west and the Isle of Dogs), there are other strategically important locations in London which play a role in sustaining future economic growth and employment in outer and inner London, and of cumulative strategic importance to the London and national economy. These locations include: (i) Town Centres identified in the London Plan with potential for office development and other specialist strategic office locations (ii) Strategic Industrial Locations and selected locally significant industrial sites A number of London boroughs are making the case for exemptions with regard to these locations. This note is submitted by the Mayor to support these cases by providing a strategic overview. It sets out the strategic policy context for exemptions submitted by the London boroughs under criteria B of the Government's exemption process, or where appropriate under criteria A where these are of cumulative strategic importance to the London and national economy. Strategic context The London Plan aims to ensure that London continues to excel as a world capital for business, while also supporting the success of local economies and neighbourhoods in all parts of the capital. As Policy 4.1 of the London Plan puts it, the Mayor’s objective is to: “promote and enable the continued
    [Show full text]
  • Bringing Home the Housing Crisis: Domicide and Precarity in Inner London
    Bringing Home the Housing Crisis: Domicide and Precarity in Inner London Melanie Nowicki Royal Holloway, University of London PhD Geography, September 2017 1 Declaration of Authorship I, Melanie Nowicki, declare that this thesis and the work presented in it is entirely my own. Where I have consulted the work of others, this is always clearly stated. Signed: Dated: 24/08/2017 2 Abstract This thesis explores the impact of United Kingdom Coalition/Conservative government housing policies on inner London’s low-income residents. It focuses specifically on the bedroom tax (a social housing reform introduced in 2013) and the criminalisation of squatting in a residential building (introduced in 2012) as case studies. These link to, and contribute towards, three main areas of scholarly and policy interest. First is the changing nature of welfare in the UK, and the relationship between social disadvantage and policy rhetoric in shaping public attitudes towards squatters and social tenants. Second, the thesis initiates better understanding of what impact the policies have made on the homelives of squatters and social tenants, and on housing segregation and affordability more broadly. Third, it highlights the multifaceted ways in which different squatters and social tenants protest and resist the two policies. Methodologically, the thesis is based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with squatters, social tenants affected by the bedroom tax, and multiple stakeholders, including housing association employees, housing solicitors and local councillors. Critical discourse analysis was also employed in order to analyse rhetoric surrounding the two policies. This involved the analysis of political speeches and news articles. Conceptually, the thesis argues for the centrality of critical geographies of home in its analysis and does so through the concepts of domicide, home unmaking, and precarity in order to understand the home as a complex and fluid part of both the lifecourse and wider social politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Inner and Outer London
    Autumn 2011 Briefing Inner and outer London: a tale of two cities? Outer London is important to the future success of the wider city; 60% of Londoners live there and 40% Policy implications of the London’s jobs are there. It is the location of • Suburbia may not be fashionable but it is key infrastructure for London and the nation. Outer often successful and adaptable; ‘people like London cannot be considered in isolation from the living there’. centre but the relationship is multifaceted. • A fine grain response is needed that recog - nizes the variety of outer London. There are common issues across outer London; con - gestion, the quality of public transport and other • Some outer London neighbourhoods have public services and the health of local High Streets successfully adapted to significant demo - but there is a danger in focusing on the need for in - graphic change; some feel threatened by their tervention without fully understanding what already proximity to central London, others derive works in the different places. London’s mayoral can - much direct benefit from their closeness. didates cannot afford to ignore outer London but Outer London offers an adaptable, flexible there are no obvious policy prescriptions. • but poorly understood built form. Many people continue to commute from outer to • The economic relationship between outer central London but many more journeys take place and central London is variable. within outer London. These complex patterns of com - muting are hard to satisfy through public transport. • The London Plan should allow for locally dis - Some parts of outer London remain white and tinct solutions; outer London needs nurturing wealthy, other parts are now home to successful eth - not prescription from the Mayor.
    [Show full text]
  • The Human-Capital Needs of Tech-City, London
    THE HUMAN-CAPITAL NEEDS OF TECH CITY, LONDON By Max Nathan TRANSATLANTIC COUNCIL ON MIGRATION THE HUMAN-CAPITAL NEEDS OF TECH CITY, LONDON Max Nathan August 2014 Acknowledgments This research was commissioned by the Transatlantic Council on Migration, an initiative of the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), for its eleventh plenary meeting, held during November 2013 in London. The meeting’s theme was “Cities and Regions: Reaping Migration’s Local Dividends” and this paper was one of the reports that informed the Council’s discussions. The Council is a unique deliberative body that examines vital policy issues and informs migration policymaking processes in North America and Europe. The Council’s work is generously supported by the following foundations and governments: Open Society Foundations, Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Barrow Cadbury Trust (UK policy partner), the Luso-American Development Foundation, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, and the governments of Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden. For more on the Transatlantic Council on Migration, please visit: www.migrationpolicy.org/transatlantic. © 2014 Migration Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved. Cover Design: Danielle Tinker, MPI Typesetting: Rebecca Kilberg, MPI No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Migration Policy Institute. A full-text PDF of this document is available for free download from www.migrationpolicy.org. Information for reproducing excerpts from this report can be found at www.migrationpolicy.org/about/copyright-policy. Inquiries can also be directed to: Permissions Department, Migration Policy Institute, 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, or by contacting [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Imaginaries and Tech Cities: Place-Branding East London's Digital Economy
    Title Spatial Imaginaries and Tech Cities: Place-branding East London’s digital economy Type Article URL https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/14511/ Dat e 2 0 1 8 Citation Voss, Georgina and Nathan, Max and Vandore, Emma (2018) Spatial Imaginaries and Tech Cities: Place-branding East London’s digital economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 19 (2). pp. 409-432. ISSN 1468-2710 Cr e a to rs Voss, Georgina and Nathan, Max and Vandore, Emma Usage Guidelines Please refer to usage guidelines at http://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/policies.html or alternatively contact [email protected] . License: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives Unless otherwise stated, copyright owned by the author FORTHCOMING IN JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY Spatial Imaginaries and Tech Cities: Place-branding East London's digital economy Max Nathan1, Emma Vandore2 and Georgina Voss3 1 University of Birmingham. Corresponding author 2 Kagisha Ltd 3 London College of Communication Corresponding author details: Birmingham Business School, University House, University of Birmingham, BY15 2TY. [email protected] Abstract We explore place branding as an economic development strategy for technology clusters, using London’s ‘Tech City’ initiative as a case study. We site place branding in a larger family of policies that develop spatial imaginaries, and specify affordances and constraints on place brands and brand-led strategies. Using mixed methods over a long timeframe, we analyse Tech City’s emergence and the overlapping, competing narratives that preceded and succeeded it, highlighting day-to-day challenges and more basic tensions. While a strong brand has developed, we cast doubt on claims that policy has had a catalytic effect, at least in the ways originally intended.
    [Show full text]
  • A Description of London's Economy Aaron Girardi and Joel Marsden March 2017
    Working Paper 85 A description of London's economy Aaron Girardi and Joel Marsden March 2017 A description of London's economy Working Paper 85 copyright Greater London Authority March 2017 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queens Walk London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk Tel 020 7983 4922 Minicom 020 7983 4000 ISBN 978-1-84781-648-1 Cover photograph © London & Partners For more information about this publication, please contact: GLA Economics Tel 020 7983 4922 Email [email protected] GLA Economics provides expert advice and analysis on London’s economy and the economic issues facing the capital. Data and analysis from GLA Economics form a basis for the policy and investment decisions facing the Mayor of London and the GLA group. GLA Economics uses a wide range of information and data sourced from third party suppliers within its analysis and reports. GLA Economics cannot be held responsible for the accuracy or timeliness of this information and data. The GLA will not be liable for any losses suffered or liabilities incurred by a party as a result of that party relying in any way on the information contained in this report. A description of London's economy Working Paper 85 Contents Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 2 The structure of London’s local economies .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • London's Turning the 'London Effect' Threatens to Undermine Labour's Performance at the Next Election
    London's Turning The 'London effect' threatens to undermine Labour's performance at the next election. Chris Hamnett argues that it is mainly caused by the vast demographic changes that have taken place in the capital over the last 20 years. Desirable residence: Gentrification changes the political structure of the capital he May 1990 local govern- and Westminster may reflect satisfac- of 1983. In the 1987 general election, for ment elections saw major tion with the lowest poll taxes in Britain example, Labour's vote rose by only gains for Labour across the (£148 and £195 respectively), combined 1.7% in London compared to 3.2% country. There was a national with a fear that Labour control might nationally and Labour lost the inner- Tswing of 11% to Labour compared with lead to an increase. The Tory gains in London constituencies of Fulham and the 1987 general election. But in London Brent and Ealing are partly explicable Battersea following the previous losses the gains were much less - 4% to 5%. in terms of previous Labour policies. of Woolwich, Dulwich, Greenwich and Not only did the Tories strengthen their Labour raised domestic rates by 63% in Bermondsey. control of the flagship boroughs of Ealing in 1987 and staggered from one It has been common to blame the Lon- Westminster and Wandsworth, they political crisis to another in Brent. don 'Loony Left' for this sequence of also wrested control of Ealing from La- But the low swing to Labour in London defeats and there is no doubt that the bour and gained large numbers of seats was not just a feature of the 1990 elec- image of the Left in London has gen- in the inner boroughs of Hammersmith tions.
    [Show full text]
  • Profiling the Spatial Structure of London
    International Journal of Geo-Information Article Profiling the Spatial Structure of London: From Individual Tweets to Aggregated Functional Zones Chen Zhong 1 , Shi Zeng 2,* , Wei Tu 3 and Mitsuo Yoshida 4 1 Department of Geography, King’s College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK; [email protected] 2 Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK 3 Key Laboratory of Spatial Information Smart Sensing and Services, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China; [email protected] 4 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Toyohashi University of Technology, Toyohashi, Aichi 441-8580, Japan; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +44-20-3108-3876 Received: 21 August 2018; Accepted: 21 September 2018; Published: 25 September 2018 Abstract: Knowledge discovery about people and cities from emerging location data has been an active research field but is still relatively unexplored. In recent years, a considerable amount of work has been developed around the use of social media data, most of which focusses on mining the content, with comparatively less attention given to the location information. Furthermore, what aggregated scale spatial patterns show still needs extensive discussion. This paper proposes a tweet-topic-function-structure framework to reveal spatial patterns from individual tweets at aggregated spatial levels, combining an unsupervised learning algorithm with spatial measures. Two-year geo-tweets collected in Greater London were analyzed as a demonstrator of the framework and as a case study. The results indicate, at a disaggregated level, that the distribution of topics possess a fair degree of spatial randomness related to tweeting behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • The Magic Roundabout: Exploring a Young Digital Cluster in Inner East London
    DRAFT PAPER / TRIPLE HELIX CONFERENCE 2013 The Magic Roundabout: Exploring a young digital cluster in Inner East London Max Nathan1, Emma Vandore2 and Georgina Voss3 1 Spatial Economics Research Centre, London School of Economics; National Institute for Economic and Social Research 2 Centre for London 3 SPRU, University of Sussex; University of Brighton Abstract [to complete] Keywords digital economy, clusters, innovation, London, Silicon Roundabout Acknowledgements This paper is based on research published by the Centre for London (Nathan, Vandore and Whitehead, 2012), and supported by the British Venture Capital Association, BT Plc and the Federation of Small Businesses. Thanks to the Secure Data Service, Tech City Map / Trampoline Systems and DueDil for help with data. Thanks also to Giulia Faggio and Rosa Sanchis-Guarner for help with code, Duncan Smith for maps, and to seminar participants at the UCL Bartlett School of Planning, Frontier Economics and UEA Business School for helpful comments on previous versions. The paper represents the views of the authors, not the Centre for London, the original funders or the data providers. All remaining errors and omissions are our own. This work includes analysis based on data from the Business Structure Database, produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and supplied by the Secure Data Service at the UK Data Archive. The data is Crown copyright and reproduced with the permission of the controller of HMSO and Queen's Printer for Scotland. The use of the ONS statistical data in this work does not imply the endorsement of the ONS or the Secure Data Service at the UK Data Archive in relation to the interpretation or analysis of the data.
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Bermondsey 6.1
    6. Bermondsey 6.1. Bermondsey Area Vision 6.1.1. Bermondsey is: • An inner-London neighbourhood characterised by modest worker houses associated with the historic Rotherhithe docks and local manufacturing industries such as biscuits, jam, vinegar and pickles; • Home to the historic riverside areas of Shad Thames, St Saviours Dock and King Edward III’s Stairs, each Bermondsey of which have their own distinct character; • Highly accessible with excellent public transport links and only a short walk to London Bridge and the City; • Notable for its employment clusters such as The Blue, Jamaica Road, Bermondsey Street and Tower Bridge Road which provide local shops, the markets at Bermondsey Square and Maltby Street and the cluster of artisanal food and beverage producers and other light industries and creative industries in and around the railway viaducts; • A place to enjoy public open spaces including Bermondsey Spa, St James’s churchyard and the Thames Path, with an important local view of Tower Bridge from King’s Stairs Gardens. 6.1.2. Development in Bermondsey should: • Provide as many homes as possible while respecting the local character of the area. There may be opportunities for taller buildings on key development sites in appropriate locations; • Improve cycling and walking routes, such as the Thames Path; • Contribute towards the development of the Low Line, a new public realm corridor adjacent to historic railway arches, with lively accessible spaces for creativity, new jobs and retail; • Provide flexible workspaces small and medium enterprises, particularly creative industries 6.1.3. Growth opportunities in Bermondsey: Large development sites in Bermondsey will provide new homes and employment spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • An Enquiry Into the Abolition of the Inner London Education Authority (1964 to 1988), with Particular Reference to Politics and Policy Making
    University of Bath PHD An enquiry into the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority (1964-1988): with particular reference to politics and policy making Radford, Alan Award date: 2009 Awarding institution: University of Bath Link to publication Alternative formats If you require this document in an alternative format, please contact: [email protected] General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 04. Oct. 2021 An Enquiry into the Abolition of the Inner London Education Authority (1964 to 1988), with Particular Reference To Politics and Policy Making Alan Radford A thesis submitted for the degree of PhD University of Bath Department of Education June 2009 COPYRIGHT Attention is drawn to the fact that copyright of this thesis rests with its author. A copy of this thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and they must not copy it or use material from it except as permitted by law or with the consent of the author.
    [Show full text]
  • London's Poverty Profile
    London’s Poverty Profile Tom MacInnes and Peter Kenway London’s Poverty Profile Tom MacInnes and Peter Kenway www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk A summary of this report can be downloaded in PDF format from www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk We are happy for the free use of material from this report for non-commercial purposes provided City Parochial Foundation and New Policy Institute are acknowledged. © New Policy Institute, 2009 ISBN 1 901373 40 1 Contents 5 Foreword Acknowledgements 6 7 Introduction and summary 11 Chapter one: An overview of London London’s boroughs: ‘cities’ in their own right 11 The changing populations of Inner and Outer London 12 London’s diverse population 12 London’s age structure 15 London’s ‘sub-regions’ 16 At London’s margins 17 19 Chapter two: Income poverty Key points 19 Context 20 Headline poverty statistics, ‘before’ and ‘after’ housing costs 21 Before or after housing costs? 22 Poverty in London compared with other English regions 23 Poverty in Inner and Outer London 26 In-work poverty 27 29 Chapter three: Receiving non-work benefits Key points 29 Context 30 Working-age adults receiving out-of-work benefits 30 Children and pensioners in households receiving benefits 34 37 Chapter four: Income and pay inequality Key points 37 Context 38 Income inequality in London compared with other English regions 39 Inequalities within London boroughs 40 43 Chapter five:Work and worklessness Key points 43 Context 44 Working-age adults lacking work 45 Children in workless households 48 Lone parent employment rates 49 The
    [Show full text]